D&D 5E How do you handle insight?

[Maxperson]

The DM calling for an ability check when when a character attempts something other than an attack is irrelevant. That's only demonstrating ability checks are not attack rolls. DM's adjucate all actions. The only difference is there's currently an argument against usibg a game term for the sake of roleplay when the term itself is clear on what it does.

There also seems to be an argument that observing something requires an action. I can only imagine how perception and most intelligence proficiencies are being applied to needing an action for the DM to judge. There are several proficiencies that are generally passive in nature.

Even perception often requires action. You have to look at something to perceive it, and that's an action on the part of the one looking. Passive perception isn't really passive at all. It's just that people are always acting(looking about).

In game terms when the player tells the DM what his PC is doing, the DM is the one who decides if an ability check is called for or not. Passive checks are also dicated by the DM and not the players, so I'm not sure what your point really is. Active or passive, the DM is the one who decides.

 

[Charlaquin]

It sounds that way because people are arguing the need to describe an action when a game term is sufficient, or describe an action just to observe something.

It’s not sufficient though, at least not for the way I adjudicate actions. I don’t need you to be descriptive, but at minimum I need to know what you hope to accomplish and how you go about trying to accomplish it. You don’t have to go into detail about how you’re trying to accomplish it, but I’m not comfortable assuming a course of action you might not have intended. Sorry, I’m not playing the “But I never said I touched the door” game.

There is no action required for perception either. Not using an action was so common that passive perception was given it's own spot on the character sheet. Do you make players think really hard and cross their eyes to make a history check?

If there’s something hidden, I telegraph it. I give the players some kind of indication in my description that there is something to be found. Maybe a draft to indicate a secret door, maybe a bit of unmortared tile to indicate a pressure plate, maybe a faint scuffling sound to indicate a creature preparing an ambush, what have you. In the past, I might have gated the telegraph behind a minimum passive Wisdom (Perception), but I don’t really do that any more. Then it’s up to the players to announce actions (with goal and approach) if they want to follow up on that hint, and I will resolve those actions as per my usual process (chance of success, chance of failure, you know the drill by now.)

For History and other knowledge-related skills, if there’s relevant information that the PCs might or might not know off hand, I just give it to them if any of the PCs are proficient in a relevant skill (History for historical facts, Nature for details about the environment or natural creatures, Arcana for magical secrets or details about magical creatures, etc. etc.) Again, at one time I might have gave such information a minimum passive Intelligence (Skill) to know, but I don’t really bother with that any more.

Now, on the other hand, for the classic scenario where you find some bauble in a dungeon with mysterious runes on it and you want to know if the runes have historical significance or whatever, yes, I need you to tell me what you hope to learn (“I want to know if these runes have historical significance” is perfectly sufficient here) and how (e.g. “by comparing them to other ancient runes I’m familiar with), and I evaluate chance of success, failure, etc. and call for a roll if necessary.

Actions create checks but checks do not necessary require actions just because the first is true.

Maybe not in your game. They do in mine.

 

[Ashrym]

Even perception often requires action. You have to look at something to perceive it, and that's an action on the part of the one looking. Passive perception isn't really passive at all. It's just that people are always acting(looking about).

Insight isn't different from that. Players looking at body language as a second nature or knowing how to interpret eye movements doesn't require anything out of the ordinary actions to notice that. The action is inherently part of something they are already doing -- looking around.

Characters walk around looking and listening constantly, and evaluate what they are perceiving constantly. Asking for an additional action to demonstrate they are doing something they are already doing to justify an DM requirement before resolving the check is redundant.

Some checks are simply passive in that they do not typically require additional actions: perception, insight, arcana, religion, history, and nature are some pretty common examples.

In game terms when the player tells the DM what his PC is doing, the DM is the one who decides if an ability check is called for or not. Passive checks are also dicated by the DM and not the players, so I'm not sure what your point really is. Active or passive, the DM is the one who decides.

DM's are still playing a game with players. Being an agreed upon ref grants a lot of power in the final say but it also includes making reasonable rulings. I don't deny DM's have the final say.

I'm saying DM's make consistent rulings with things like organized game play, published materials, sage advice or errata, and reasonable gameplay. It's unreasonable for a player to become disruptive over rulings during play but it's not unreasonable to request clarification or give reminder. It's also not unreasonable to use a game term to initiate the actions and request the resolution for the DM to make.

I never said the DM doesn't make the call. I said the DM shouldn't require additional descriptive action. It's unnecessary and can be disruptive to game flow or player enjoyment because simple interactions become more complex and monotonous.

It’s not sufficient though, at least not for the way I adjudicate actions. I don’t need you to be descriptive, but at minimum I need to know what you hope to accomplish and how you go about trying to accomplish it. You don’t have to go into detail about how you’re trying to accomplish it, but I’m not comfortable assuming a course of action you might not have intended. Sorry, I’m not playing the “But I never said I touched the door” game.


If there’s something hidden, I telegraph it. I give the players some kind of indication in my description that there is something to be found. Maybe a draft to indicate a secret door, maybe a bit of unmortared tile to indicate a pressure plate, maybe a faint scuffling sound to indicate a creature preparing an ambush, what have you. In the past, I might have gated the telegraph behind a minimum passive Wisdom (Perception), but I don’t really do that any more. Then it’s up to the players to announce actions (with goal and approach) if they want to follow up on that hint …

So the opposite of the passive perception score that been used for the last two editions.

Now, on the other hand, for the classic scenario where you find some bauble in a dungeon with mysterious runes on it and you want to know if the runes have historical significance or whatever, yes, I need you to tell me what you hope to learn (“I want to know if these runes have historical significance” is perfectly sufficient here) and how (e.g. “by comparing them to other ancient runes I’m familiar with), and I evaluate chance of success, failure, etc. and call for a roll if necessary.

So if I'm playing a published adventures that lists a DC for religion knowledge when I see an old statue I would need to guess what to ask and then make up a reason to make the check before you let me check?

Discussions like this are about standard practices too. What you do at your table might answer the insight but it doesn't overwrite the existence of passive checks.

 

[Campbell]

I don't think it is unreasonable for players to describe what they want to do in terms of game mechanics, but I also think it is entirely reasonable to ask what that looks like in the fiction if the GM is unsure. Like I usually ask because I'm genuinely curious about the details.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Scene as it would play out in my game:

…​

Ned: "Yes but I'm a sound sleeper. Sorry I can't help you more."​

Bob: "Can I make an insight check?"​

For me, that last quote takes me out of the scene. It is immersion-breaking. I mean, I know we are all playing a game, but I like to stay in the role. I want to hear something like, "Bob: Is he lying? What's his body language?"

Asking for a game mechanic is jarring and interrupting. But as I said, that is just my style.

Additionally, I'm with several bloggers (including AngryGM) who ask something like, 'Why would a player ever ask for a chance to fail?" As soon as you roll the dice, there is a non-zero chance of failure. If you just ask the GM, "is he lying?", you might get the answer, "Yes".

 

[Maxperson]

Insight isn't different from that. Players looking at body language as a second nature or knowing how to interpret eye movements doesn't require anything out of the ordinary actions to notice that. The action is inherently part of something they are already doing -- looking around.

No it really isn't automatic at all. I'm very good at reading people, but I don't do it all the time. There are lots of times that I just don't care and I'm just talking to someone. It's something I have to make an effort to do most times. Sometimes I just pick up on something without any effort, but it's only sometimes.

In any case, it doesn't matter whether you feel something is automatic or active. In both cases it's only the DM that calls for a roll, not the players.

Characters walk around looking and listening constantly, and evaluate what they are perceiving constantly. Asking for an additional action to demonstrate they are doing something they are already doing to justify an DM requirement before resolving the check is redundant.

This is wrong even with what you describe. Pretty much anything done automatically is going to be inferior to active attempts. When the PC walks into a room, he weakly perceives the walls and potential secret doors. If he actively examines the wall closely, he is FAR more likely to succeed. It's not only not redundant, it is generally going to be better.

Some checks are simply passive in that they do not typically require additional actions: perception, insight, arcana, religion, history, and nature are some pretty common examples.

This is also not as true as you make it sound. Most times when someone asks me if I have seen a movie or know about something, I have to actually think about it consciously. It doesn't just pop into my head of its own volition. Something I've seen many times like Star Wars, sure, that wouldn't take an action. Some non-blockbuster I saw once 10 years ago? You better believe I'd have to make an effort to remember.

Again, though, it's not really relevant. Only the DM calls for rolls, and generally after the player describes a PC's action.

 

[Blue]

Yes... I had followed. I expanded in a slightly different direction because it's often very related to the kind of bad play your response was assuming.

I'm not sure I follow. The bad play I saw was the DM intentionally using the mechanics to purposefully misinterpret what the player was saying by assuming the playing was requiring risk and uncertainty.

Because the other alternative is that you are saying that players may only interact with the DM narratively and that all other ways are BADWRONGFUN. Which is both elitist and gakekeeping. People playing the hooby and having fun - however it works for their table - is good. Even if they occasionally ask "Can I make an insight roll to tell if he's lying or thinks he's telling the truth?".

 

[Blue]

Even perception often requires action. You have to look at something to perceive it, and that's an action on the part of the one looking. Passive perception isn't really passive at all. It's just that people are always acting(looking about).

This may get down to a level of splitting hairs that's not too useful for the game. The character lives in the world, and without instruction of the player do things like see, hear, breath, etc. If there is an overwhelming stench, they need take no specific action to notice it. And the player should not need to ask the DM "do I smell anything" to get that feedback. The DM is the interface to the world and is supposed to describe to the player what the character experiences.

Passive perception is a shorthand for the DM to know what they should describe just because the character is alive and in the world. For example, if instead of an overwhelming stench there was a mild taint of brimstone in the air, some characters might be oblivious (without taking a specific action, as you mentioned), while other characters may notice it as soon as entering the area.

 

[Charlaquin]

I never said the DM doesn't make the call. I said the DM shouldn't require additional descriptive action. It's unnecessary and can be disruptive to game flow or player enjoyment because simple interactions become more complex and monotonous.

Again, it’s not about description, it’s about clarity. As long as you make clear what you want to accomplish and what your character is doing to accomplish it, I don’t care how descriptive or vague you are in expressing it.

So the opposite of the passive perception score that been used for the last two editions.

Certainly very different than passive perception in 4th edition, yes. I believe the way that I use passive perception in 5th edition - namely, using it as the DC for Dexterity (Stealth) checks to hide from the creature - is consistent with the RAW of 5th edition.

So if I'm playing a published adventures that lists a DC for religion knowledge when I see an old statue I would need to guess what to ask and then make up a reason to make the check before you let me check?

I’m not aware of any 1st party adventures published for 5th edition that include such a scenario. But sure, for the sake of argument let’s say I am running a published adventure, and that published adventure includes information about a statue and says that the players need to make an Intelligence (History) check with a specified DC to learn that information. Chances are I’m just going to ignore that instruction. If the information is something the PCs might or might not already know, I’ll give it to them if anyone has Proficiency in History. If it’s information that the adventure expects the players to need to investigate the statue to learn, then first of all I would expect a published adventure to call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check, and second of all, yes, you will have to actively interact with the statue to learn that information.

Discussions like this are about standard practices too. What you do at your table might answer the insight but it doesn't overwrite the existence of passive checks.

I’m not trying to tell anyone how to run their games. Oofta and others have asked questions about a style of action resolution that I employ, so I am answering.

 

[Blue]

I was responding specifically to 5ekyu’s response to DM Dave 1. Paraphrasing here:

DM Dave 1: Because an action must have a chance of failure and a consequence for failure in order for a check to be called for, a player asking to make a check is asking for a chance of failure and a consequence for failure.

5ekyu: Yeah, but the rules don’t say you should insert a chance of failure and consequence for failure where none would have existed just because the player asked to make a check.

Me: Obviously, but if there wasn’t a chance of failure and a consequence for failure anyway, then a check would not be the appropriate way to resolve the action, therefore the only appropriate response to the player’s request to make a check is, “no.”

Thank you, I now understand the point you were making. I do so miss the old ENworld threading of replies to comments - I've had someone else hit into with me, and now I hit into it with you.

An appropriate response might start with "there is no need for a check...", but if you understood their intention should then continue with the response. "You don't need to roll athletics, you can just climb the ladder" (or whatever.)